Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 851	control, N = 431	treatment, N = 421	p-value2
age	85	50.51 ± 13.04 (25 - 74)	50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)	50.74 ± 12.94 (28 - 73)	0.873
gender	85				0.519
f		60 (71%)	29 (67%)	31 (74%)
m		25 (29%)	14 (33%)	11 (26%)
occupation	85				0.894
day_training		2 (2.4%)	2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)
full_time		9 (11%)	5 (12%)	4 (9.5%)
homemaker		6 (7.1%)	3 (7.0%)	3 (7.1%)
other		2 (2.4%)	0 (0%)	2 (4.8%)
part_time		15 (18%)	7 (16%)	8 (19%)
retired		21 (25%)	10 (23%)	11 (26%)
self_employ		4 (4.7%)	2 (4.7%)	2 (4.8%)
student		1 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.4%)
t_and_e		2 (2.4%)	1 (2.3%)	1 (2.4%)
unemploy		23 (27%)	13 (30%)	10 (24%)
marital	85				0.692
cohabitation		1 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.4%)
divore		10 (12%)	7 (16%)	3 (7.1%)
in_relationship		1 (1.2%)	1 (2.3%)	0 (0%)
married		21 (25%)	10 (23%)	11 (26%)
none		46 (54%)	22 (51%)	24 (57%)
seperation		3 (3.5%)	2 (4.7%)	1 (2.4%)
widow		3 (3.5%)	1 (2.3%)	2 (4.8%)
edu	85				0.843
bachelor		24 (28%)	9 (21%)	15 (36%)
diploma		18 (21%)	11 (26%)	7 (17%)
hd_ad		3 (3.5%)	2 (4.7%)	1 (2.4%)
postgraduate		7 (8.2%)	4 (9.3%)	3 (7.1%)
primary		5 (5.9%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (7.1%)
secondary_1_3		10 (12%)	6 (14%)	4 (9.5%)
secondary_4_5		16 (19%)	8 (19%)	8 (19%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.4%)	1 (2.3%)	1 (2.4%)
fam_income	85				0.908
10001_12000		4 (4.7%)	1 (2.3%)	3 (7.1%)
12001_14000		5 (5.9%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (7.1%)
14001_16000		5 (5.9%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (7.1%)
16001_18000		2 (2.4%)	1 (2.3%)	1 (2.4%)
18001_20000		4 (4.7%)	3 (7.0%)	1 (2.4%)
20001_above		14 (16%)	7 (16%)	7 (17%)
2001_4000		13 (15%)	9 (21%)	4 (9.5%)
4001_6000		10 (12%)	4 (9.3%)	6 (14%)
6001_8000		9 (11%)	5 (12%)	4 (9.5%)
8001_10000		7 (8.2%)	3 (7.0%)	4 (9.5%)
below_2000		12 (14%)	6 (14%)	6 (14%)
medication	85	75 (88%)	39 (91%)	36 (86%)	0.520
onset_duration	85	15.28 ± 10.96 (0 - 56)	16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)	13.88 ± 9.66 (0 - 35)	0.246
onset_age	85	35.23 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)	33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)	36.86 ± 15.13 (15 - 64)	0.291
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 851	control, N = 431	treatment, N = 421	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	85	3.08 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)	0.934
recovery_stage_b	85	18.01 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)	17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)	18.17 ± 2.55 (13 - 23)	0.597
ras_confidence	85	30.19 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)	29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)	30.76 ± 5.17 (20 - 43)	0.274
ras_willingness	85	12.24 ± 1.95 (7 - 15)	12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)	12.40 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)	0.432
ras_goal	85	17.60 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)	17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)	17.71 ± 2.94 (12 - 24)	0.718
ras_reliance	85	13.06 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)	12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)	13.14 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)	0.786
ras_domination	85	9.93 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)	10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)	9.43 ± 2.33 (3 - 14)	0.050
symptom	85	30.42 ± 9.81 (14 - 56)	31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)	28.86 ± 9.57 (15 - 56)	0.147
slof_work	85	22.84 ± 4.88 (10 - 30)	22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)	23.14 ± 5.31 (10 - 30)	0.569
slof_relationship	85	25.82 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)	25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)	26.55 ± 5.87 (11 - 35)	0.268
satisfaction	85	20.53 ± 6.71 (5 - 32)	18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)	22.24 ± 6.57 (5 - 32)	0.019
mhc_emotional	85	11.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)	11.74 ± 4.03 (4 - 18)	0.195
mhc_social	85	15.04 ± 5.26 (6 - 30)	15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)	14.93 ± 5.33 (6 - 26)	0.855
mhc_psychological	85	22.15 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)	21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)	22.76 ± 6.34 (6 - 36)	0.349
resilisnce	85	16.67 ± 4.49 (6 - 27)	16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)	17.07 ± 4.83 (7 - 27)	0.420
social_provision	85	13.71 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)	13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)	14.17 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)	0.143
els_value_living	85	17.13 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)	16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)	17.76 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.047
els_life_fulfill	85	12.66 ± 3.29 (4 - 20)	11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)	13.81 ± 3.16 (4 - 20)	0.001
els	85	29.79 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)	28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)	31.57 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)	0.003
social_connect	85	26.91 ± 9.22 (8 - 48)	27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)	25.95 ± 10.14 (8 - 48)	0.349
shs_agency	85	14.58 ± 4.77 (3 - 24)	13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)	15.43 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)	0.104
shs_pathway	85	16.56 ± 3.90 (4 - 24)	16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)	17.12 ± 4.06 (4 - 23)	0.197
shs	85	31.14 ± 8.21 (7 - 47)	29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)	32.55 ± 8.59 (7 - 47)	0.119
esteem	85	12.69 ± 1.53 (10 - 18)	12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)	12.45 ± 1.45 (10 - 16)	0.150
mlq_search	85	15.01 ± 3.25 (3 - 21)	14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)	15.17 ± 3.46 (3 - 21)	0.667
mlq_presence	85	13.54 ± 4.10 (3 - 21)	13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)	13.76 ± 4.53 (3 - 21)	0.627
mlq	85	28.55 ± 6.53 (6 - 42)	28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)	28.93 ± 7.21 (6 - 42)	0.603
empower	85	19.47 ± 4.05 (6 - 28)	18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)	20.00 ± 4.54 (6 - 28)	0.236
ismi_resistance	85	14.78 ± 2.61 (5 - 20)	14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)	15.14 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)	0.202
ismi_discrimation	85	11.46 ± 3.14 (5 - 19)	12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)	10.48 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)	0.004
sss_affective	85	10.04 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	9.50 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)	0.195
sss_behavior	85	9.67 ± 3.98 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)	8.93 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	0.089
sss_cognitive	85	8.24 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	7.81 ± 3.59 (3 - 18)	0.308
sss	85	27.94 ± 10.68 (9 - 54)	29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)	26.24 ± 10.72 (9 - 54)	0.147
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.09	0.181	2.74, 3.45
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.022	0.257	-0.526, 0.482	0.933
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.223	0.273	-0.312, 0.758	0.417
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.233	0.384	-0.519, 0.985	0.546
	Pseudo R square	0.021
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.420	17.0, 18.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.306	0.598	-0.865, 1.48	0.609
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.252	0.594	-1.42, 0.913	0.673
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.900	0.834	-0.735, 2.53	0.285
	Pseudo R square	0.020
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.6	0.758	28.1, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.13	1.078	-0.979, 3.25	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.349	0.826	-1.27, 1.97	0.674
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.11	1.157	-1.16, 3.38	0.343
	Pseudo R square	0.033
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.1	0.304	11.5, 12.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.335	0.432	-0.513, 1.18	0.440
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.691	0.306	-1.29, -0.091	0.028
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.774	0.429	-0.067, 1.61	0.077
	Pseudo R square	0.035
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.464	16.6, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.226	0.660	-1.07, 1.52	0.733
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.945	0.535	-1.99, 0.104	0.083
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.85	0.750	0.381, 3.32	0.017
	Pseudo R square	0.040
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.418	12.2, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.166	0.595	-1.00, 1.33	0.781
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.461	0.425	-0.372, 1.29	0.283
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.889	0.595	-0.277, 2.06	0.141
	Pseudo R square	0.038
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.4	0.348	9.74, 11.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.990	0.495	-1.96, -0.020	0.048
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.544	0.460	-1.45, 0.359	0.243
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.68	0.646	0.413, 2.94	0.012
	Pseudo R square	0.041
symptom	(Intercept)	32.0	1.491	29.0, 34.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.10	2.122	-7.25, 1.06	0.148
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.248	1.203	-2.11, 2.61	0.838
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.81	1.684	-5.11, 1.49	0.288
	Pseudo R square	0.038
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.749	21.1, 24.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.608	1.065	-1.48, 2.70	0.570
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.794	0.636	-2.04, 0.452	0.218
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.179	0.890	-1.57, 1.92	0.842
	Pseudo R square	0.009
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.1	0.893	23.4, 26.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.43	1.270	-1.06, 3.92	0.263
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.05	0.887	-2.79, 0.692	0.243
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.29	1.243	-1.15, 3.72	0.306
	Pseudo R square	0.029
satisfaction	(Intercept)	18.9	1.038	16.8, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.38	1.477	0.483, 6.27	0.024
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.895	1.236	-1.53, 3.32	0.472
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.198	1.732	-3.59, 3.20	0.909
	Pseudo R square	0.059
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.7	0.570	9.56, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.06	0.811	-0.526, 2.65	0.193
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.355	0.548	-0.718, 1.43	0.520
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.518	0.767	-2.02, 0.985	0.503
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.841	13.5, 16.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.211	1.197	-2.56, 2.14	0.860
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.10	0.952	-0.762, 2.97	0.252
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.889	1.334	-3.50, 1.73	0.508
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.958	19.7, 23.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.20	1.364	-1.47, 3.88	0.379
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.764	1.031	-1.26, 2.78	0.462
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.451	1.444	-3.28, 2.38	0.756
	Pseudo R square	0.009
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.675	15.0, 17.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.792	0.961	-1.09, 2.68	0.411
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.017	0.744	-1.44, 1.48	0.981
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.16	1.042	-0.883, 3.20	0.271
	Pseudo R square	0.026
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.443	12.4, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.911	0.631	-0.325, 2.15	0.152
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.850	0.542	-1.91, 0.211	0.122
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.997	0.759	-0.491, 2.48	0.194
	Pseudo R square	0.054
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.5	0.457	15.6, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.25	0.650	-0.023, 2.52	0.057
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.100	0.496	-0.872, 1.07	0.842
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.359	0.694	-1.00, 1.72	0.608
	Pseudo R square	0.053
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.5	0.467	10.6, 12.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.27	0.664	0.973, 3.58	0.001
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.968	0.480	0.028, 1.91	0.049
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.646	0.672	-1.96, 0.671	0.341
	Pseudo R square	0.112
els	(Intercept)	28.0	0.837	26.4, 29.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.52	1.191	1.19, 5.86	0.004
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.826	-0.598, 2.64	0.222
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.221	1.156	-2.49, 2.04	0.849
	Pseudo R square	0.096
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.8	1.429	25.0, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.88	2.033	-5.87, 2.10	0.356
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.505	1.233	-1.91, 2.92	0.684
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.87	1.727	-5.25, 1.51	0.284
	Pseudo R square	0.021
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.730	12.3, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.68	1.039	-0.352, 3.72	0.108
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.280	0.782	-1.25, 1.81	0.722
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.355	1.095	-1.79, 2.50	0.747
	Pseudo R square	0.037
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.0	0.590	14.9, 17.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.10	0.840	-0.550, 2.74	0.195
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.176	0.618	-1.04, 1.39	0.777
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.250	0.866	-1.95, 1.45	0.774
	Pseudo R square	0.017
shs	(Intercept)	29.8	1.243	27.3, 32.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.78	1.769	-0.686, 6.25	0.119
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.448	1.286	-2.07, 2.97	0.729
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.124	1.801	-3.41, 3.65	0.945
	Pseudo R square	0.030
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.215	12.5, 13.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.478	0.307	-1.08, 0.123	0.122
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.036	0.328	-0.607, 0.679	0.914
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.280	0.461	-0.623, 1.18	0.546
	Pseudo R square	0.023
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.9	0.499	13.9, 15.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.306	0.710	-1.09, 1.70	0.667
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.329	0.602	-1.51, 0.852	0.587
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.034	0.844	-1.69, 1.62	0.968
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.3	0.626	12.1, 14.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.436	0.891	-1.31, 2.18	0.625
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.007	0.730	-1.44, 1.42	0.992
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.022	1.023	-1.98, 2.03	0.983
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq	(Intercept)	28.2	1.011	26.2, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.743	1.438	-2.08, 3.56	0.607
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.347	1.180	-2.66, 1.97	0.770
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.000	1.654	-3.24, 3.24	1.00
	Pseudo R square	0.004
empower	(Intercept)	19.0	0.626	17.7, 20.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	0.891	-0.699, 2.79	0.243
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.089	0.588	-1.06, 1.24	0.881
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.466	0.823	-2.08, 1.15	0.574
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.384	13.7, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.724	0.547	-0.348, 1.80	0.188
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.075	0.524	-0.951, 1.10	0.886
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.008	0.735	-1.43, 1.45	0.991
	Pseudo R square	0.021
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.4	0.472	11.5, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.94	0.672	-3.26, -0.626	0.005
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.662	0.506	-1.65, 0.330	0.196
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.882	0.709	-0.507, 2.27	0.219
	Pseudo R square	0.071
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.6	0.555	9.47, 11.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.06	0.789	-2.60, 0.488	0.183
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.093	0.540	-0.964, 1.15	0.863
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.18	0.756	-2.66, 0.304	0.125
	Pseudo R square	0.049
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.4	0.583	9.25, 11.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.47	0.829	-3.09, 0.159	0.080
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.305	0.617	-1.51, 0.905	0.624
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.450	0.865	-2.14, 1.25	0.605
	Pseudo R square	0.049
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.65	0.571	7.53, 9.77
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.842	0.813	-2.44, 0.752	0.303
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.946	0.523	-0.079, 1.97	0.077
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.81	0.732	-3.25, -0.377	0.017
	Pseudo R square	0.049
sss	(Intercept)	29.6	1.593	26.5, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.37	2.266	-7.81, 1.07	0.141
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.816	1.422	-1.97, 3.60	0.569
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.49	1.991	-7.39, 0.414	0.086
	Pseudo R square	0.054
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(124) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48], t(124) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.76], t(124) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.98], t(124) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(124) = 42.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.48], t(124) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.91], t(124) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.53], t(124) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.92])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.14, 31.11], t(124) = 39.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.25], t(124) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(124) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.38], t(124) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.67], t(124) = 39.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(124) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(124) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.61], t(124) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.81])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.40], t(124) = 37.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.52], t(124) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.10], t(124) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.38, 3.32], t(124) = 2.47, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.12, 1.07])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(124) = 31.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(124) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.29], t(124) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.06], t(124) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(124) = 29.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.96, -0.02], t(124) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.86, -8.80e-03])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.36], t(124) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.41, 2.94], t(124) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.03, 34.88], t(124) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.10, 95% CI [-7.25, 1.06], t(124) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.61], t(124) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-5.11, 1.49], t(124) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.15])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(124) = 30.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.70], t(124) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.45], t(124) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.92], t(124) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.37, 26.87], t(124) = 28.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.92], t(124) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.69], t(124) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.72], t(124) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.65])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.90], t(124) = 18.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [0.48, 6.27], t(124) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-1.53, 3.32], t(124) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.59, 3.20], t(124) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(124) = 18.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.65], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(124) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.99], t(124) = -0.68, p = 0.500; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.27])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.49, 16.79], t(124) = 17.99, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.56, 2.14], t(124) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.97], t(124) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.73], t(124) = -0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.31])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.68, 23.44], t(124) = 22.49, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.88], t(124) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.78], t(124) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.28, 2.38], t(124) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.37])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(124) = 24.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.68], t(124) = 0.82, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.48], t(124) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.94e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.20], t(124) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.72])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(124) = 29.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.15], t(124) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.21], t(124) = -1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.48], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.41], t(124) = 36.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.52], t(124) = 1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-7.57e-03, 0.82])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.07], t(124) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.72], t(124) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.56])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(124) = 24.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [0.97, 3.58], t(124) = 3.42, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.03, 1.91], t(124) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [8.60e-03, 0.59])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.67], t(124) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.69], t(124) = 33.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.19, 5.86], t(124) = 2.96, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.64], t(124) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.04], t(124) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.04, 30.64], t(124) = 19.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.10], t(124) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.92], t(124) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.87, 95% CI [-5.25, 1.51], t(124) = -1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.16])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(124) = 18.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.35, 3.72], t(124) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.81], t(124) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.50], t(124) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.52])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(124) = 27.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.74], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.39], t(124) = 0.29, p = 0.776; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.95, 1.45], t(124) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.38])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.33, 32.20], t(124) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.78, 95% CI [-0.69, 6.25], t(124) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.97], t(124) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-3.41, 3.65], t(124) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(124) = 60.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.12], t(124) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.68], t(124) = 0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.18], t(124) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.84])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.88, 15.84], t(124) = 29.77, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.70], t(124) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.85], t(124) = -0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.62], t(124) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(124) = 21.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.18], t(124) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.42], t(124) = -9.89e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.78e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.03], t(124) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 5.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.17], t(124) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.56], t(124) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.97], t(124) = -0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.90e-05, 95% CI [-3.24, 3.24], t(124) = -1.15e-05, p > .999; Std. beta = -2.87e-06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(124) = 30.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.79], t(124) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.24], t(124) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.15], t(124) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.28])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(124) = 37.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.80], t(124) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.10], t(124) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.06e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.45], t(124) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.49, 13.34], t(124) = 26.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.94, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.63], t(124) = -2.89, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.33], t(124) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.27], t(124) = 1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.71])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.47, 11.65], t(124) = 19.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.49], t(124) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.15], t(124) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(124) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.08])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.25, 11.54], t(124) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.09, 0.16], t(124) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.91], t(124) = -0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.25], t(124) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.32])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.53, 9.77], t(124) = 15.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.75], t(124) = -1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.97], t(124) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.38], t(124) = -2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.10])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.48, 32.73], t(124) = 18.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.81, 1.07], t(124) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.97, 3.60], t(124) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-7.39, 0.41], t(124) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.04])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	414.614	423.216	-204.307	408.614
recovery_stage_a	random	6	416.979	434.184	-202.489	404.979	3.635	3	0.304
recovery_stage_b	null	3	629.087	637.690	-311.544	623.087
recovery_stage_b	random	6	632.470	649.675	-310.235	620.470	2.617	3	0.454
ras_confidence	null	3	766.475	775.078	-380.238	760.475
ras_confidence	random	6	766.974	784.180	-377.487	754.974	5.501	3	0.139
ras_willingness	null	3	523.915	532.518	-258.958	517.915
ras_willingness	random	6	523.114	540.319	-255.557	511.114	6.801	3	0.079
ras_goal	null	3	645.187	653.789	-319.593	639.187
ras_goal	random	6	643.678	660.884	-315.839	631.678	7.508	3	0.057
ras_reliance	null	3	612.569	621.172	-303.285	606.569
ras_reliance	random	6	606.697	623.903	-297.349	594.697	11.872	3	0.008
ras_domination	null	3	581.517	590.120	-287.759	575.517
ras_domination	random	6	579.049	596.254	-283.524	567.049	8.468	3	0.037
symptom	null	3	916.964	925.567	-455.482	910.964
symptom	random	6	918.087	935.293	-453.044	906.087	4.877	3	0.181
slof_work	null	3	740.327	748.930	-367.164	734.327
slof_work	random	6	743.365	760.570	-365.682	731.365	2.963	3	0.397
slof_relationship	null	3	799.808	808.411	-396.904	793.808
slof_relationship	random	6	802.156	819.361	-395.078	790.156	3.652	3	0.302
satisfaction	null	3	856.225	864.828	-425.113	850.225
satisfaction	random	6	855.627	872.832	-421.813	843.627	6.598	3	0.086
mhc_emotional	null	3	678.715	687.318	-336.358	672.715
mhc_emotional	random	6	682.784	699.990	-335.392	670.784	1.931	3	0.587
mhc_social	null	3	792.701	801.304	-393.351	786.701
mhc_social	random	6	797.099	814.305	-392.550	785.099	1.602	3	0.659
mhc_psychological	null	3	822.373	830.975	-408.186	816.373
mhc_psychological	random	6	826.996	844.202	-407.498	814.996	1.376	3	0.711
resilisnce	null	3	736.037	744.639	-365.018	730.037
resilisnce	random	6	737.833	755.038	-362.916	725.833	4.204	3	0.240
social_provision	null	3	637.031	645.634	-315.516	631.031
social_provision	random	6	636.325	653.530	-312.163	624.325	6.706	3	0.082
els_value_living	null	3	634.756	643.358	-314.378	628.756
els_value_living	random	6	634.965	652.170	-311.483	622.965	5.791	3	0.122
els_life_fulfill	null	3	645.276	653.879	-319.638	639.276
els_life_fulfill	random	6	636.347	653.552	-312.173	624.347	14.930	3	0.002
els	null	3	790.286	798.889	-392.143	784.286
els	random	6	784.807	802.012	-386.403	772.807	11.480	3	0.009
social_connect	null	3	909.756	918.359	-451.878	903.756
social_connect	random	6	912.762	929.967	-450.381	900.762	2.994	3	0.393
shs_agency	null	3	754.036	762.639	-374.018	748.036
shs_agency	random	6	755.882	773.087	-371.941	743.882	4.155	3	0.245
shs_pathway	null	3	694.520	703.122	-344.260	688.520
shs_pathway	random	6	698.762	715.967	-343.381	686.762	1.758	3	0.624
shs	null	3	888.627	897.229	-441.313	882.627
shs	random	6	891.473	908.678	-439.736	879.473	3.154	3	0.368
esteem	null	3	460.118	468.721	-227.059	454.118
esteem	random	6	463.039	480.244	-225.519	451.039	3.080	3	0.380
mlq_search	null	3	661.152	669.754	-327.576	655.152
mlq_search	random	6	666.261	683.466	-327.130	654.261	0.891	3	0.828
mlq_presence	null	3	716.836	725.438	-355.418	710.836
mlq_presence	random	6	722.547	739.753	-355.274	710.547	0.288	3	0.962
mlq	null	3	841.682	850.285	-417.841	835.682
mlq	random	6	847.194	864.399	-417.597	835.194	0.488	3	0.921
empower	null	3	700.819	709.421	-347.409	694.819
empower	random	6	705.203	722.409	-346.602	693.203	1.615	3	0.656
ismi_resistance	null	3	603.231	611.834	-298.615	597.231
ismi_resistance	random	6	607.008	624.213	-297.504	595.008	2.223	3	0.527
ismi_discrimation	null	3	645.467	654.069	-319.733	639.467
ismi_discrimation	random	6	642.659	659.864	-315.329	630.659	8.808	3	0.032
sss_affective	null	3	678.269	686.872	-336.134	672.269
sss_affective	random	6	676.633	693.838	-332.316	664.633	7.636	3	0.054
sss_behavior	null	3	696.402	705.005	-345.201	690.402
sss_behavior	random	6	696.471	713.676	-342.235	684.471	5.932	3	0.115
sss_cognitive	null	3	682.061	690.664	-338.031	676.061
sss_cognitive	random	6	679.297	696.502	-333.648	667.297	8.764	3	0.033
sss	null	3	945.718	954.320	-469.859	939.718
sss	random	6	943.778	960.983	-465.889	931.778	7.939	3	0.047

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	43	3.09 ± 1.19		42	3.07 ± 1.19		0.933	0.022
recovery_stage_a	2nd	22	3.32 ± 1.17	-0.224	23	3.53 ± 1.17	-0.458	0.546	-0.212
recovery_stage_b	1st	43	17.86 ± 2.75		42	18.17 ± 2.75		0.609	-0.143
recovery_stage_b	2nd	22	17.61 ± 2.67	0.118	23	18.81 ± 2.67	-0.303	0.132	-0.565
ras_confidence	1st	43	29.63 ± 4.97		42	30.76 ± 4.97		0.295	-0.397
ras_confidence	2nd	22	29.98 ± 4.41	-0.122	23	32.22 ± 4.45	-0.510	0.092	-0.784
ras_willingness	1st	43	12.07 ± 1.99		42	12.40 ± 1.99		0.440	-0.318
ras_willingness	2nd	22	11.38 ± 1.73	0.657	23	12.49 ± 1.75	-0.079	0.034	-1.054
ras_goal	1st	43	17.49 ± 3.04		42	17.71 ± 3.04		0.733	-0.121
ras_goal	2nd	22	16.54 ± 2.75	0.507	23	18.62 ± 2.77	-0.487	0.013	-1.116
ras_reliance	1st	43	12.98 ± 2.74		42	13.14 ± 2.74		0.781	-0.114
ras_reliance	2nd	22	13.44 ± 2.38	-0.315	23	14.49 ± 2.41	-0.924	0.142	-0.722
ras_domination	1st	43	10.42 ± 2.28		42	9.43 ± 2.28		0.048	0.606
ras_domination	2nd	22	9.87 ± 2.16	0.333	23	10.56 ± 2.17	-0.695	0.288	-0.422
symptom	1st	43	31.95 ± 9.78		42	28.86 ± 9.78		0.148	0.760
symptom	2nd	22	32.20 ± 8.00	-0.061	23	27.30 ± 8.14	0.383	0.044	1.203
slof_work	1st	43	22.53 ± 4.91		42	23.14 ± 4.91		0.570	-0.281
slof_work	2nd	22	21.74 ± 4.06	0.368	23	22.53 ± 4.13	0.285	0.521	-0.364
slof_relationship	1st	43	25.12 ± 5.85		42	26.55 ± 5.85		0.263	-0.470
slof_relationship	2nd	22	24.07 ± 5.05	0.344	23	26.79 ± 5.11	-0.079	0.075	-0.893
satisfaction	1st	43	18.86 ± 6.81		42	22.24 ± 6.81		0.024	-0.782
satisfaction	2nd	22	19.76 ± 6.22	-0.207	23	22.93 ± 6.26	-0.161	0.090	-0.737
mhc_emotional	1st	43	10.67 ± 3.74		42	11.74 ± 3.74		0.193	-0.567
mhc_emotional	2nd	22	11.03 ± 3.19	-0.189	23	11.58 ± 3.24	0.087	0.570	-0.291
mhc_social	1st	43	15.14 ± 5.52		42	14.93 ± 5.52		0.860	0.064
mhc_social	2nd	22	16.24 ± 4.95	-0.334	23	15.14 ± 5.00	-0.065	0.460	0.333
mhc_psychological	1st	43	21.56 ± 6.29		42	22.76 ± 6.29		0.379	-0.338
mhc_psychological	2nd	22	22.32 ± 5.55	-0.214	23	23.07 ± 5.61	-0.088	0.652	-0.211
resilisnce	1st	43	16.28 ± 4.43		42	17.07 ± 4.43		0.411	-0.308
resilisnce	2nd	22	16.30 ± 3.94	-0.007	23	18.25 ± 3.98	-0.457	0.101	-0.758
social_provision	1st	43	13.26 ± 2.91		42	14.17 ± 2.91		0.152	-0.480
social_provision	2nd	22	12.41 ± 2.68	0.448	23	14.31 ± 2.70	-0.077	0.019	-1.005
els_value_living	1st	43	16.51 ± 3.00		42	17.76 ± 3.00		0.057	-0.730
els_value_living	2nd	22	16.61 ± 2.65	-0.058	23	18.22 ± 2.68	-0.267	0.045	-0.939
els_life_fulfill	1st	43	11.53 ± 3.06		42	13.81 ± 3.06		0.001	-1.378
els_life_fulfill	2nd	22	12.50 ± 2.67	-0.586	23	14.13 ± 2.70	-0.195	0.044	-0.986
els	1st	43	28.05 ± 5.49		42	31.57 ± 5.49		0.004	-1.245
els	2nd	22	29.07 ± 4.73	-0.360	23	32.37 ± 4.79	-0.282	0.021	-1.167
social_connect	1st	43	27.84 ± 9.37		42	25.95 ± 9.37		0.356	0.449
social_connect	2nd	22	28.34 ± 7.79	-0.120	23	24.59 ± 7.91	0.325	0.111	0.895
shs_agency	1st	43	13.74 ± 4.79		42	15.43 ± 4.79		0.108	-0.624
shs_agency	2nd	22	14.02 ± 4.22	-0.104	23	16.06 ± 4.27	-0.235	0.110	-0.755
shs_pathway	1st	43	16.02 ± 3.87		42	17.12 ± 3.87		0.195	-0.514
shs_pathway	2nd	22	16.20 ± 3.39	-0.083	23	17.04 ± 3.43	0.035	0.407	-0.397
shs	1st	43	29.77 ± 8.15		42	32.55 ± 8.15		0.119	-0.628
shs	2nd	22	30.22 ± 7.12	-0.101	23	33.12 ± 7.20	-0.129	0.176	-0.656
esteem	1st	43	12.93 ± 1.41		42	12.45 ± 1.41		0.122	0.399
esteem	2nd	22	12.97 ± 1.40	-0.030	23	12.77 ± 1.40	-0.264	0.637	0.165
mlq_search	1st	43	14.86 ± 3.27		42	15.17 ± 3.27		0.667	-0.145
mlq_search	2nd	22	14.53 ± 3.00	0.156	23	14.80 ± 3.02	0.172	0.762	-0.129
mlq_presence	1st	43	13.33 ± 4.11		42	13.76 ± 4.11		0.625	-0.172
mlq_presence	2nd	22	13.32 ± 3.72	0.003	23	13.78 ± 3.75	-0.006	0.681	-0.180
mlq	1st	43	28.19 ± 6.63		42	28.93 ± 6.63		0.607	-0.181
mlq	2nd	22	27.84 ± 6.01	0.084	23	28.58 ± 6.06	0.084	0.681	-0.181
empower	1st	43	18.95 ± 4.11		42	20.00 ± 4.11		0.243	-0.521
empower	2nd	22	19.04 ± 3.49	-0.044	23	19.62 ± 3.54	0.188	0.580	-0.289
ismi_resistance	1st	43	14.42 ± 2.52		42	15.14 ± 2.52		0.188	-0.388
ismi_resistance	2nd	22	14.49 ± 2.41	-0.040	23	15.23 ± 2.42	-0.045	0.311	-0.392
ismi_discrimation	1st	43	12.42 ± 3.10		42	10.48 ± 3.10		0.005	1.111
ismi_discrimation	2nd	22	11.76 ± 2.73	0.379	23	10.70 ± 2.76	-0.126	0.198	0.607
sss_affective	1st	43	10.56 ± 3.64		42	9.50 ± 3.64		0.183	0.572
sss_affective	2nd	22	10.65 ± 3.12	-0.050	23	8.42 ± 3.16	0.586	0.018	1.209
sss_behavior	1st	43	10.40 ± 3.82		42	8.93 ± 3.82		0.080	0.689
sss_behavior	2nd	22	10.09 ± 3.36	0.143	23	8.17 ± 3.40	0.354	0.059	0.900
sss_cognitive	1st	43	8.65 ± 3.75		42	7.81 ± 3.75		0.303	0.472
sss_cognitive	2nd	22	9.60 ± 3.16	-0.530	23	6.94 ± 3.21	0.485	0.006	1.488
sss	1st	43	29.60 ± 10.44		42	26.24 ± 10.44		0.141	0.695
sss	2nd	22	30.42 ± 8.75	-0.168	23	23.57 ± 8.89	0.551	0.010	1.415

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(119.15) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.49)

2st

t(125.29) = 0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(114.16) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.49)

2st

t(125.17) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.78)

ras_confidence

1st

t(99.39) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.01 to 3.27)

2st

t(125.96) = 1.70, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.37 to 4.86)

ras_willingness

1st

t(96.56) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)

2st

t(125.41) = 2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(101.83) = 0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.53)

2st

t(125.97) = 2.52, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.70)

ras_reliance

1st

t(96.85) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.35)

2st

t(125.51) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.47)

ras_domination

1st

t(109.47) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.97 to -0.01)

2st

t(125.36) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.97)

symptom

1st

t(91.11) = -1.46, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-7.31 to 1.12)

2st

t(120.20) = -2.04, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-9.67 to -0.14)

slof_work

1st

t(92.11) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.72)

2st

t(121.83) = 0.64, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.21)

slof_relationship

1st

t(96.14) = 1.13, p = 0.263, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.95)

2st

t(125.25) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.28 to 5.72)

satisfaction

1st

t(103.36) = 2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.45 to 6.31)

2st

t(125.88) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.50 to 6.86)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(95.11) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.67)

2st

t(124.74) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.44)

mhc_social

1st

t(100.94) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.16)

2st

t(126.00) = -0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-4.04 to 1.84)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(98.87) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.50 to 3.91)

2st

t(125.91) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.54 to 4.05)

resilisnce

1st

t(99.82) = 0.82, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.70)

2st

t(125.98) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.38 to 4.29)

social_provision

1st

t(104.70) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.16)

2st

t(125.77) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.49)

els_value_living

1st

t(99.21) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.54)

2st

t(125.95) = 2.02, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(97.21) = 3.42, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (0.96 to 3.59)

2st

t(125.61) = 2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.21)

els

1st

t(95.89) = 2.96, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (1.16 to 5.89)

2st

t(125.14) = 2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.50 to 6.11)

social_connect

1st

t(92.46) = -0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.15)

2st

t(122.31) = -1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-8.39 to 0.88)

shs_agency

1st

t(98.69) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.75)

2st

t(125.89) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.47 to 4.55)

shs_pathway

1st

t(97.89) = 1.31, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.76)

2st

t(125.77) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.86)

shs

1st

t(97.44) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.73 to 6.29)

2st

t(125.67) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.32 to 7.13)

esteem

1st

t(119.74) = -1.56, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.13)

2st

t(125.33) = -0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.63)

mlq_search

1st

t(104.06) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.71)

2st

t(125.82) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.05)

mlq_presence

1st

t(102.32) = 0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.20)

2st

t(125.95) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.66)

mlq

1st

t(102.40) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.59)

2st

t(125.94) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.82 to 4.30)

empower

1st

t(94.49) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.81)

2st

t(124.33) = 0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.65)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(111.41) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.81)

2st

t(125.25) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(98.73) = -2.89, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.28 to -0.61)

2st

t(125.90) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.56)

sss_affective

1st

t(95.48) = -1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.51)

2st

t(124.95) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.09 to -0.38)

sss_behavior

1st

t(98.28) = -1.77, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.11 to 0.18)

2st

t(125.84) = -1.90, p = 0.059, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(93.81) = -1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.77)

2st

t(123.78) = -2.80, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 1.49, 95% CI (-4.53 to -0.77)

sss

1st

t(93.23) = -1.49, p = 0.141, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.87 to 1.13)

2st

t(123.22) = -2.61, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.65)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(62.25) = 1.68, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.00)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(58.69) = 1.10, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.83)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(50.61) = 1.79, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.09)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(49.25) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.69)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(51.82) = 1.72, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.97)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(49.39) = 3.23, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(55.87) = 2.49, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.05)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(46.70) = -1.32, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.94 to 0.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(47.16) = -0.98, p = 0.660, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.64)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(49.05) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.99)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(52.60) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.75 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(48.56) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(51.38) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.10)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(50.36) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.35)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 1.61, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.65)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(53.29) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.22)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(50.53) = 0.94, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.44)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(49.56) = 0.68, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(48.93) = 0.98, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.43)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(47.32) = -1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.80 to 1.07)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(50.28) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.18)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(49.89) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.15)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(49.67) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.12)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(62.73) = 0.97, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.97)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(52.96) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.83)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(52.07) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(52.11) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.68 to 1.99)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(48.27) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.79)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(56.99) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(50.29) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.22)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(48.74) = -2.04, p = 0.093, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.15 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(50.08) = -1.24, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.47)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(47.95) = -1.68, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.17)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(47.68) = -1.91, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.48 to 0.14)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.03) = 0.81, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.77)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.13) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.95)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.28) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(49.79) = -2.25, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.07)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(52.60) = -1.76, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.13)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(49.94) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.04) = -1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.38)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.00) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.67)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(47.51) = -1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.49)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(49.57) = -1.18, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.84 to 0.74)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.44) = 0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.39)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.04) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.11) = 1.15, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.00) = 0.74, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(51.51) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.52)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.20) = -1.56, p = 0.249, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.24)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.18) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.13) = 2.01, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.94)

els

1st vs 2st

t(49.44) = 1.23, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.69)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(47.68) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.99)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(50.91) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.48) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.42)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.24) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.15 to 3.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.56) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(53.84) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.89)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(52.86) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(52.91) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.73 to 2.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(48.72) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.27)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.26) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.13)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(50.93) = -1.30, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.36)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(49.23) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(50.69) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(48.37) = 1.80, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.00)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.07) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.69)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance